St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 45:2 (2001) 115–36
T HE P ASCHAL FOUNDATION OFCHRISTIAN T HEOLOGY
John Behr
The question of the proper starting point, the “first principles,” is
one to which theology, and every discipline it encompasses, mustcontinually return. Without being firmly grounded on its properfoundation, the vast body of reflection developed within theology risks collapsing into dust. It is not simply that the first principlesare elementary stages, transcended by higher realms of esoteric re-flection, but that they also provide the necessaryorientation orper-spective within which the more abstract discussion takes place andis to be understood. It is clear that the Christian faith is first andforemost faith in the lordship and divinity of the crucified and ex-alted Christ, yet the implications of this fact for how we under-stand and construe Christian doctrine are rarely considered. Theanalysis of this dimension offered in this article might seem unnec-essarily laborious and extensive, but the scope and importance of its implications merit such a venture.
Trinity and Incarnation—Axes of the Christian Faith? The dictum that “conclusions without the arguments that lead tothem are at best ambiguous” might seem obvious, but its implica-tions are rarely taken up. An example of this is the way in whichTrinitarian theology, debated so vigorously during the fourth cen-tury on grounds already prepared during the first three, is often re-duced to shorthand formulae, such as the “three hypostases andone ousia” of “the consubstantial Trinity.” The reflection that liesbehindsuchphrases is immense,yet it isoften glossed over. Indeed,the very familiarity of such phrases results in their being detachedfrom the debates that resulted in them and divorced from the con-tent that they seek to encapsulate. These “facts of dogma” are
assumed as a given, and so Trinitarian theology concerns itself with
reflecting on how the one God can simultaneously be three eter-nally distinct persons, without the plurality destroying the unity orthe unity undermining the reality of the distinctions. In its text-book form, such theology begins with what can be known and saidof this God—that he is one, the uncreated origin of all creation,love, goodness and so on; and then proceeds to the analysis how this same God is three—how the persons of the Trinity are related,their different characteristics and relationships.1 Having explainedthis “immanent” trinitarian theology, describing the being of sucha God as it is in itself, the next step is to relate this Trinity to the ac-tivity of revelation, the economy of salvation recorded in Scripture,the “economic” dimension of trinitarian theology. But now, be-cause of the position already established, it is simply assumed, be-ginning with Augustine, that the theophanies described in the OldTestament were not uniquely manifestations of the Son and Wordof God, but of any of the three, or the Trinity itself, the one LordGod, as Augustine put it.2 Finally it is claimed, first by PeterLombard, though it is still a common presupposition, that while it was the Son who became man, as Jesus Christ, it was neverthelesspossible, and still is, for the Father and the Spirit also to be incar-nate.3 Trinitarian theology is made into realm unto itself, requiring subsequent reflection on “the Incarnation” of one of the three di-
vine persons: Triadology followed by Christology. In this perspec-tive, the Trinity and the Incarnation are taken as being thelinchpins of Christian theology—Christian faith is “Trinitarian”and “incarnational.”4 This has become an unquestioned premisefor most twentieth-century theology.
116 ST VLADIMIR’S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY
1 The classic critique of such theology is Karl Rahner, The Trinity , trans. by J. Donceel (Tunbridge Wells: Burns & Oates, 1986 [1967]).
2 Cf. Augustine, De Trinitate , 3.1.3.3 Cf. Peter Lombard, Libri IV Sententiarum, 3.1.2.4 Classically expressed in the various essays inLux Mundi: A Series ofStudies in the Re-
ligionof the Incarnation, ed. C. Gore (London, 1889); for more recent reflection, seeK. Rahner, “The Theology of the Incarnation,” in idem. Theological Investigations ,vol. 4, 105–120; R. Williams, “Beginning with the Incarnation,” essay 6 in idem.On Christian Theology (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000), 79–92.
There are a few brief comments which need to be made about
this state of affairs. First, it must be recognized that the familiarshorthand formulae did not occur at all frequently in the writingsof the fourth-century fathers. Although the “Cappadocian settle-ment” of Trinitarian theology is often said to be the formula “oneousia, three hypostases,” the phrase occurs in their writings butonce—in a passage from St Gregory of Nazianzus.5 More generally,the Cappadocians use a variety of expressions to designate what iscommon to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and in what manner they are distinct. More particularly, they all urge great caution in using numbers at all in matters of theology:
When the Lord taught us the doctrine of Father, Son andHoly Spirit, he did not make arithmetic a part of this gift! Hedid not say, “In the first, the second and the third” or “In one,two and three.” … There is one God and Father, one only-begotten Son, and one Holy Spirit. We declare each of the
hypostases uniquely ( monacw` ~ ejxaggevllomen ), and if wemust use numbers, wewill not let an ignorant arithmetic leadus astray into polytheism.6
This warning has also been sounded in modern times by VladimirLossky, though his words are not always heeded:
In speaking of threehypostases, weare already making an im-proper abstraction: if we wanted to generalize and make a
concept of the “divine hypostasis,” we would have to say thatthe only common definition possible would be the impossi-bility of any common definition of the three hypostases.7
T he P aschal F oundation of C hristian T heology 117
5 On the Great Athanasius , 35; this point is noted by J. T. Lienhard, “Ousia andHypostasis : The Cappadocian Settlement and the Theology of ‘OneHypostasis ,’” inS. T. Davies, D. Kendall, and G. O’Collins eds.,The Trinity (Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity Press, 1999), 99–121, esp. 99–103.
6 St Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit , 44. Cf. St Gregory of Nyssa, To Ablabius .7 V. Lossky,IntheImageandLikenessofGod (Crestwood, NY:SVSPress,1974),113.
The problem is exacerbated by the translation of the term “hypostasis” as “person,” with the extended significance that term carries in modern English. As Rahnerpoints out (Trinity , 108), “While formerly “person” meant directly (in recto) only the distinct subsistence, and co-signified the rational nature only indirectly (inobliquo)—according to the thing-like way of thinking of the Greeks—the ‘anthro-pocentric turn’ of modern times requires that thespiritual-subjective element in the
The same point can be made about the shorthand manner of
referring to the “consubstantial Trinity.” It was a key point forSt Athanasius, following the Nicene Creed, that the Son isconsubstantial with the Father; but, for Athanasius, this relation-ship cannot be reversed, nor can they be said to be consubstantialtogether, for the simple reason that the Son is begotten fromthe Fa-ther: this is an intrinsically asymmetrical relationship.8 A few de-cades later, St Basil the Great is happy to say of the Father and Sonthat “they are called consubstantial,” though he specifies that thisrelationship necessitates that one is derived from the other; accord-ing to Basil, one would not call “consubstantial” things which bothderive fromthe same source, for they are “brothers.”9 Ifwenow,forthe sake of brevity, speak of “the consubstantial Trinity,” we mustsimilarly bear in mind the asymmetry of the relationship, based inthe monarchy of the Father, the one God. The point of this brief observation is to make clear that we cannot allow detached short-hand formulae to become unconscious presuppositions shaping our theological reflections.
The second point to note is the way in which presupposing theresults of the debates, as self-subsisting dogmatic formulae, effec-tively separates the reflection of the authors of the New Testamentfrom that of the fathers, that is, those who continued in the tradi-tion established by the apostles. The patristic period then is itself
divided into distinct controversies—Trinitarian followed by Christological—establishing the already known dogmas of Chris-tianity, in which the writings of Scripture are only used in an adhoc, proof-text manner. This perception of a disjunction betweenthe authors of the New Testament and the fathers parallels (and isprobably due to) the parting of the ways, in modern times, be-tween, on the one hand, scriptural studies, which attempt to estab-lish the original authorship, redaction, context, and perhaps mean-ing of their texts, or the original history of “the Jesus movement,”
118 ST VLADIMIR’S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY
concept ofperson befirst understood.” It is essential that this point be taken into ac-count, lest theology “anthropomorphize” the Father and the Holy Spirit.
8 Cf. esp. C. Stead, Divine Substance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977), 260–66.9 St Basil, Epistle 52.
and, on the other hand, patristic studies which trace the develop-
ment of already known dogmatic positions. Serious engagement with Scripture, let alone scriptural scholarship, is generally absentfrom patristic studies, “neo-patristic syntheses,” and dogmatic works—especially by the Orthodox—during the twentieth cen-tury, and likewise the fathers are consulted usually to confirm whatis already believed. On the other hand, it is perhaps not surprising that when scholars, trained in the historical-critical methodologiesof scriptural studies, have attempted to come to terms with thedogmas articulated in patristic theology, they have tended to speak in terms of “the myth of God Incarnate.”10 Dogma is, as Harnack put it, the work of the Greek spirit on the soil of the Gospel—if only because it has been forced into this mould by Harnack himself and those who have followed him.11
The final and most important comment that needs to be made
regarding the orientation of much modern theology (including Orthodox) is that, construed in terms of the gradual developmentof a dogmatic edifice, the reflection of the fathers has effectively been divorced fromthe given revelation ofGod in Christ, and beenmade to retell that revelation in a different manner, so that the Word of God is no longer the locus of God’s self-expression (for it isnow held that any of the three appeared in the Old Testament the-ophanies), and the Incarnate Word, Jesus Christ, is not so much“the exact imprint of the very being” of the Father (Heb 1:3), but israther the incarnation of a divine person which could have beenotherwiseifsodesired.This,tobeblunt,isnothingshortofthedis-tortion of the Gospel itself. Rather than establishing that what isseen in Christ, as proclaimed by the Gospel, truly is what it is to beGod, that he is divine with the same divinity as his Father, a recog-
T he P aschal F oundation of C hristian T heology 119
10 Most notoriously in the collectionofessays by that title, editedbyJ.Hick,TheMythof God Incarnate (London: SCM, 1977).
11 A.Harnack,History ofDogma ,trans.from3rdGermanedn.byN.Buchanan,(Lon-don and Edinburgh: Williams & Norgate, 1894), 1.17, 21–22. A. McGrath pointsout, “From its beginnings, the history of dogma has been written about by thoseconcerned with its elimination.” (The Genesis of Doctrine: A Study in the Foundationof Doctrinal Criticism [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1997], 138).
nition only possible in the Spirit (whoalone enables us to recognize
Christ as Lord, the bearer of the Divine Name, cf. 1 Cor 12:3;Phil 2:8–9), Trinitarian theology, in the style outlined above, con-cerns itself with the heavenly existence of three divine persons; andtheir interrelationship, as persons in communion, is then taken asthe constitutive element of our own existence in the image of God,so marginalizing even further Christ—for, according to the New Testament, it is Christ alone who is the image of the invisible God(Col 1:15), in whose pattern Adam was already molded (Rom 5:14),and to whose image we are conformed (Rom 8:29) when we arecrucified with him (Gal 2:20, etc.).
The Canon and Tradition of the Gospel According to Scripture
Christian theology quite simply is not based upon the supposedtwo axes of Trinity and Incarnation, and some of the problems
which arise when it is treated as if it does have been indicated.Rather, theological reflection, beginning with the original apostlesand continuing with all those who follow in their tradition, devel-opsasaresponsetothemarvellousworkofGodinJesusChrist,thecrucified and exalted Lord. More specifically, and significantly, itdevelops by reflecting through the medium of Scripture—the Law,the Psalms, and the Prophets: Christ died according to Scriptureand he rose according to Scripture, as Paul puts it (1 Cor 15:3–4),in a phrase which reappears in practically every later creed. ThatChristian theology is a response to the Passion of the Savior, and re-flects on the work of God through this prism, reveals not only theunity of all theology in the paschal faith, but also allows us to seethe unity of the theological endeavor in both the work of the apos-tles and that of the fathers, and also the unity of aspects of theChristian faith, and even the supposed schools of Christian theol-
ogy, often held apart.Before turning to consider the paschal dimensions of “Incarna-tion,” a few more words need to be said about the dynamics of Christian theological reflection. The writers of Israel had alwaysused their Scriptures, the images and descriptions of earlier events
and figures which they contain, to understand, illustrate, and ex-
plain their own situation. Paul and the evangelists continued thisredeployment of Scripture. Yet the Gospel of Christ also claimsitself to be definitive, not only in the sense of ultimate or final, butalso as singular—the Passion of Christ is once for all (ejfavpax ,Rom 6:10; Heb 7:27). This singularity, in reverse, provides the di-verse books of Scripture with a unity and a coherence: “The escha-tologicalapokalypsis of the cross,” as Richard Hays puts it, providesa hermeneutical lens through which Scripture is refracted with “a profound new symbolic coherence.”12 This sense of the unity of Scripture—the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets—is vividly cap-tured by St Irenaeus in his comparison of “the order and the con-nection of the Scriptures” to a mosaic of a king, which his Gnosticopponents were rearranging into a picture of a dog.13 These Gnos-tics, he claimed, werenot working from the “hypothesis” which theprophets preached, the Lord taught, and the apostles handed down(“traditioned”), but rather from their own myths and fabrications.However, he continues, those who know the “canon of truth”—that there is one God the Father, one Son Jesus Christ, and oneHoly Spirit who spoke of Christ through the prophets14—such areabletorestorethepassagestotheirproperordersothattheimageof the King may once again be seen ( AH 1.9–10). In this way, the co-herence and unity of Scripture when viewed from the perspective
ofthecross,thematrixwithinwhichtheGospelwaspreachedfromthe beginning, is intimately connected to the dynamics of canonand tradition.
It is by this canon that the “canonical” books of the New Testa-ment are marked out. It needs to be pointed out that “canon” does
T he P aschal F oundation of C hristian T heology 121
12 Richard Hays,Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 169.
13 Against the Heresies [= AH ] 1.814 It is noteworthy that in the earliest forms of the canon of truth, such as thatgiven by
Irenaeus ( AH 1.10.1), all the economies of Christ, recounted in the Gospels, arepresented under the article on the Holy Spirit, who preached these things throughthe prophets—Scripture when read according to the Spirit, as speaking of Christ—rather than under the second article, as in the later declaratory creeds, where whatthe Spirit “spoke through the prophets” is left unspecified.
not and cannot refer to a “list,” “catalogue,” or “collection,” and was
never used that way until 1768; to speak of “the canon of Scripture”is a confusion of terms and categories.15 The canonical Gospels are,of course, centered on the Passion. Origen suggests (in a passage in-corporated by Sts Basil and Gregory into theirPhilokalia ) that whileChrist is presented in many different ways in the Gospels, this refersto “anything he did before the Passion and whatever happened afterhis Resurrection from the dead,”16 that is, the unchanging identity of the Word ofGod is revealed through the cross,and everythingelseis patterned upon this. Each episode within the narratives of the ca-nonicalGospelsproclaims, in varying ways,theGospel ,whiletheun-changing center remains the Passion and exaltation, for this is therevelation of the Word of God.17 While Paul had declared that thedeath and resurrectionof Christ are “according to Scripture,” the de-tails of this are explored, in the canonical Gospels, by the evangelists’description of Christ and his activity. So, the Gospel of Jesus Christbegins, in Mark, with a passage from Isaiah; the narrative of Mat-thew is structured in terms of prophecy-fulfillment; in Luke, therisen Christ enlightens his disciples by showing how the Scripturesspeak of him (Lk 24:27); while in John, Christ asserts categorically that “Moses spoke of me” (Jn 5:46). In contrast, a non-canonicaltext, such as the Gospel according to Thomas , even if it preserves au-thentic sayings of the “historical Jesus,” does not attempt to under-
stand and present Christ through the medium of Scripture, nor, atleast in the Gospel according to Thomas , is there a Passion.
122 ST VLADIMIR’S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY
15 Cf. J. Behr, The Way to Nicaea (New York: SVS, 2001), 13, fn 4.16 Contra Celsum, 6.77 = Philokalia , 15.20.17 John Barton (Holy Writings, Sacred Text: The Canon in Early Christianity [Louis-
ville, KY: Westminster, 1997] 128) makes the following pertinent observation: “InCatholic and Orthodox liturgy, the reading of the Gospel is attended with specialceremonies that emphasize the holiness of the ‘message’ it communicates, and ‘thegospel’ is felt to be proclaimed through the chosen pericope whatever it may be,even if (to take the extreme case) it happens to be from the genealogies in Matthew orLuke. … inAnglican liturgy one begins the reading, ‘Theholy gospel is written inthe Gospel according to Saint X, in the nth chapter’—emphasizing, that is, that the
whole gospel is present in any given portion; and that one does not say, ‘Here endeththe gospel,’whereas one does (or did)say, ‘Here endeth the epistle,’ because the gos-pel has no end.”
canonical New Testament, reflection on Christ is an exegetical en-terprise. But, it is very important to note that it is Christ who isbeing explained through the medium of Scripture, not Scriptureitself that is being exegeted:18 the object is not to understand the“original meaning” of an ancient text, as in modern historical-critical scholarship, but to understand Christ himself, who, by being explained “according to the Scriptures” becomes the solesubject of Scripture throughout—he is the Word of God. Seen inthis retrospect, reflecting on Scripture in the light of God’s actionin the crucified and glorified Messiah, Scripture becomes a thesau-rus or treasury from which are drawn the images and terms used toproclaim the Gospel.
To ensure that the same image of Christ is preserved, according to the canon and tradition of the Gospel according to Scripture,the fathers, faced with various distortions, reflected further on thehypothesis of Scripture, the canon of truth. This resulted, of course, in an increasingly abstract theological discussion, whichpaid ever greater attention to particularly important or disputedpassages of Scripture, cited in the manner of proof-texts, for theconcern was not toexegete Scripture itself, but toclarify its hypoth-esis and the canon by which it speaks of Jesus Christ. But the pointof such on-going reflection is not to describe ultimate structures of “reality,” to elaborate a fundamental ontology, whether of “Being”or “communion” (or both), which then tends to function as if itconstitutes the content of the revelation itself. Rather, the aim of such theological reflection was to articulate as precisely as possible,in the face of perceived aberrations, the canon of truth, so as to pre-serve the undistorted image of Christ, constantly returning, asSt Polycarp urged his readers, to “the Word delivered in the begin-
ning.”19
T he P aschal F oundation of C hristian T heology 123
18 Note especially the comments of James Barr, The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 89.
Viewing theological reflection as responding to Passion in this way,is a much more satisfactory perspective, not only for studying par-ticular fathers—examining how they respond to the Gospel in thecontext in which they lived, rather than as anticipations of themajor conciliar definitions yet to come—but also for understand-ing the dogmas resulting from the various controversies. The im-plications of this change in perspective for Trinitarian theology
were briefly explored above. The Paschal perspective also consider-ably illumines what is involved in what is referred to, in shorthand,as “the Incarnation.”
The presentation of Christ by the apostles and evangelists“according to Scripture,” that is, with the terms and images con-tained in the thesaurus of Scripture, in turn establishes types andprophecies of Christ in Scripture, so making the crucified andexalted Jesus Christ the subject throughout Scripture—he is “thesame today, yesterday and forever” (Heb 13:8). And it is this JesusChrist, present throughout the Law, the Psalms and the Prophets, who is revealed by the cross . Irenaeus explains this mystery throughthe imagery given by Christ in Matthew 13, in a lengthy passage which deserves to be quoted in full:
If anyone, therefore, reads the Scriptures this way, hewill findin them the Word concerning Christ and a foreshadowing of the new calling. For Christ is the “treasure which was hiddenin the field” [Mt 13:44], that is, in this world—for “the fieldis the world” [Mt 13:38]—[a treasure] hidden in the Scrip-tures, for he was indicated by means of types and parables which could not be understood by men prior to the consum-mation of those things which had been predicted, that is, theadvent of the Lord. And therefore it was said to Daniel theprophet, “Shut up the words and seal the book until the timeof the consummation, until many learn and knowledgeabounds. For when the dispersion shall be accomplished they shall know all these things” [Dan 12:4, 7]. And Jeremiah alsosays, “In the last days they shall understand these things”[Jer 23:20]. For every prophecy, before its fulfillment, is
nothing but an enigma and ambiguity to men; but when the
time has arrived and the prediction has come to pass then ithas an exact exposition (ejxhvghsi~ ). And for this reason, when at this present time the Law is read by the Jews, it is likea myth, for they do not possess the explanation (ejxhvghsi~ )of all things which pertain to the human advent of the Son of God; but when it is read by Christians, it is a treasure, hid in a field but brought to light by the cross of Christ, and explained,both enriching the understanding of men and showing forth
the wisdom of God and making known his dispensations withregard to man and prefiguring the kingdom of Christ andpreaching in anticipation the good news of the inheritance of the holy Jerusalem and proclaiming beforehand that the man who loves God shall advance so far as even to see God and hearhis Word and be glorified from hearing his speech to such anextent that others will not be able to behold his glorious coun-tenance [cf. 2 Cor 3:7], as was said by Daniel, “Those who un-
derstand shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, andmany of the righteous as the stars for ever and ever”[Dan 12:3]. In this manner, then, I have shown it to be, if any-one read the Scriptures. ( AH 4.26.1)
The image given by Christ, of treasure hidden in the field, or the world, is used by Irenaeus to refer to Christ himself: prior to thecross, Christ is hidden as a treasure in Scripture. Christ is hidden inScripture in prophecies and types, in the words and events of thepatriarchs and prophets, which prefigure what was to happen inand through Christ in his human advent as preached by the apos-tles. However, they are only prophecies and types; what they indi-cateisnotyetknown.Andso,forthosewhoreadScripturewithoutthe explanation of what it is that they foreshadow, the Word they contain and the Gospel they anticipate, Scripture remains only myths and fables. It is through the cross, the Passion of Christ, thatlight is shed on these writings, revealing what they in factmeanandhow they announce the Word of God. The crucified and exalted Jesus Christ was present prior to the Passion as the veiled content of Scripture, the Word of God hidden in the words of Scripture,
T he P aschal F oundation of C hristian T heology 125
being revealed through the cross, in thekerygma , the proclamation
of the Gospel.So, for Irenaeus the revelation of the Word of God does notoccur simply with the birth of Jesus from Mary; rather the revela -tion occurs in an interpretative context—“if anyone reads theScriptures in this way” they will encounter the Word, Jesus Christ,as he is revealed by the cross. Many people saw Jesus during his life,and his death on the cross, but not all understood who he is; to un-derstand this requires reflection and an interpretative engagement with the Scriptures. But Irenaeusalso goes one step further, in a tre-mendously dynamic manner: if anyone reads Scripture in this way,focusing on Christ and understanding him by engaging with theScriptures as illuminated by the cross, they are, in turn, themselvesinterpreted, as it were, by the Word of God, in such a manner thatthey also become transfigured to such a point that others will notbe able to behold their glorious countenance. Concerning them-selves with Christ, in this engagement with Scripture seen throughthe cross, they put on Christ’s own identity.
Irenaeus further unpacks the mystery of the Scriptures being opened by the cross, by combining John 1:14 with the apocalypticimagery of the book of Revelation, when he points out that, asChrist has been given all things by his Father (Mt 11:27), Christalone, as the judge of the living and the dead, has the key of David,
and so he alone opens and shuts (Rev 3:7). Using the imagery of Revelation 5, Irenaeus continues:“No one, either in heaven oron earth, orunder the earth, wasable to open the book” of the Father, “nor to look into it,” with the exception of “the Lamb who was slain and who re-deemed us with his own blood,” receiving from the sameGod, who made all things by the Word and adorned them by [his] Wisdom, power over all things when “the Word becameflesh” [Jn 1:14]. ( AH 4.20.2)
Only the slain Lamb has received all power, wealth, wisdom andmight (Rev 5:12), and so he alone is able to open the book, andthis, Irenaeus specifies, is the book of the Father. The revelation of
whose actions and words proclaim the manner in which the Word
became present and manifest. It is in the preaching of Jesus Christ,the proclamation of the one who died on the cross, interpreted andunderstood in the matrix, the womb, of Scripture, that the Wordreceives flesh from the virgin. The virgin in this case, Hippolytuslater affirms following Revelation 12, is the Church, who will nevercease “bearing from her heart the Word that is persecuted by theunbelieving in the world,” while the male child she bears is Christ,God and man, announced by the prophets, “whom the Churchcontinually bears as she teaches all nations.”21
As a final example, the connection between the cross and therevelation of the Word of God, now specifically referred to as “theIncarnation,” is addressed most directly by St Athanasius, in hisclassic work, On the Incarnation. This treatise is usually read,anachronistically, as an exposition of how and why the secondperson of the Trinity became man—so thatwe might become God.But to do this overlooks completely Athanasius’ own stated pur-pose in the opening words of the work:
Well then, my friend, let us next with pious reverence tell of the incarnation of the Word and expound his divinemanifes-tationtous,whichtheJewsslanderandtheGreeksmock,but which we ourselves adore, so that from the apparent degrada-tionof the Word you may haveevergreater and strongerpiety
towards him. For the more he is mocked by unbelievers, thegreater witness he provides of his divinity, because what mencannot understand as impossible, he shows to be possible,and what men mock as unsuitable by his goodness he renderssuitable, and what men explain away and mock as human by his power he shows to be divine, overthrowing the illusion of idols by his apparent degradation through the cross, and per-suading those who mock and do not believe to recognise his
divinity and power.22
That is, the work which Athanasius callsOn the Incarnation(just asthe previous treatise, to which he here refers, Against the Heathen),
128 ST VLADIMIR’S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY
21 Antichrist , 61: … o}n ajei; tivkousa hJ ejkklhsiva didavskei pavnta ta; e[qnh.22 On the Incarnation, 1.
is meant as an apology for the cross.23 The “Incarnation of the
Word” and his apparent degradation are through the cross, whichis mocked and slandered by Jews and Greeks; although this very mockery and slander, the apparent degradation, in fact, demon-strates his divinity. Human conceptions of what befits divinity,human idols, are overthrown by the “apparent degradation” of the Word on the cross—“apparent” because for those who understandthis properly, that is, “according to theScriptures,”24 this is nothing less than “the divine manifestation to us” of the Word, which Athanasius sets himself to expound. In this way, Athanasius showsthat it is not “irrational” (alogos ) to “confess that he who ascendedthe cross is the Word (logos ) of God and saviour of the universe.”25
And so Athanasius concludes his treatise On the Incarnation withan exhortation to study Scripture, “written by God through menversed in theology,” so that we might learn of “his second gloriousand truly divine manifestation to us,” and so participate in “thefruit of his own cross.”26
For all the fathers considered, and examples could be multipliedeasily, the Incarnation of the Word is not located in the birth of Jesus from Mary as a distinct event from the Passion and exaltation.In some ways, such a position results from assuming the shorthandformulae as “dogmatic facts,” and then conflating John 1:14, which does not speak of a birth, with the infancy narratives, whichdo not speak of an incarnation of a heavenly, previously existing being. That Jesus was indeed born from Mary—a specific, tempo-ral, historical event—was indeed assumed as a given. But, it is es-sential to note, to describe this event as “the Incarnation of the Word” can only be done by reflecting on Christ in the light of thecross through the medium of Scripture. When this is done, whenthe Passion, the crucifixion, and exaltation, is taken as the central
T he P aschal F oundation of C hristian T heology 129
23 For this, see K. Anatolios, Athanasius: The Coherence of His Thought (New York:Routledge, 1998), 28–29, 84.
24 Note especially the different explanations of the Passion of Christ Athanasius pro-vides for those “outside” and “inside” the Church, On the Incarnation, 21–26.
25 Against the Heathen, 1.26 On the Incarnation, 56.
evident, though often overlooked, in the creeds and dogmatic defi-
nitions of the Councils. For instance, the Chalcedonian definitionspecifies that it is one and the same Jesus Christ who is both Godand man, one hypostasis in two natures, and that it is he who isLord, God, Son and Logos—in other words, “logos” is a title of Jesus Christ, rather than being the name of the eternal secondperson of the Trinity who “subsequently” (as if God is subject totime) becomes the man Jesus Christ. It is one and the same JesusChrist, as St Cyril of Alexandria affirms so emphatically, who isfrom the Father as the Word of God and from the line of David asman—two births but one and the same subject, Jesus Christ.28
Theological talk of “Incarnation” thus operates at an interpreta-tive level, based on the paschal faith—it is the Crucified One whois the Incarnate Word.But one must alsogofurther, asalready indi-cated by Irenaeus and Hippolytus. If it is from the perspective of the cross that we speak of the Word becoming flesh, fashioning a body from the virgin to be the temple in which he dwells, as Athanasius puts it, then this body cannot be separated from thebodies of Christians in whom the Word now dwells. So, in Athanasius’ work On the Incarnation,thereisverylittleaboutJesus’actual birth or his life before the Passion: the treatise is mainly con-cerned with what the Word has worked through the body, by dying in the body and so granting his disciples life in his body, and conse-
quently the bulk of Athanasius’ demonstration of the divinity of Christ argues from the divine works the Word effects in Christiansnow. The various levels in all of this reflection are summed up con-cisely in the second century Letter to Diognetus : “He was from thebeginning, appeared new yet was found to be old, and is ever new [or “young”] being born in the hearts of the saints.”29
T he P aschal F oundation of C hristian T heology 131
28 That Christ is One (740A): “We say that one and the same Jesus Christ is from Godthe Father as God the Word and also of the line of godly David according to theflesh.”
“Christology” and the “Schools” of Alexandria and Antioch
It is also worth noting briefly how seeing theological reflection asprimarily reflection upon the Passion results in a very different pic-ture not only in the way that we construe Christian doctrine, butalso with regard to the “schools” of theology that are often postu-lated in modern textbooks. Focusing on Incarnation as “birth” re-sults in a very distorted picture of Christology, one which tends toconcern itself with enumerating the “parts” of Jesus Christ, taking
him as Word and flesh (supposedly “Alexandrian”) or as Word andman (where “man” is taken as flesh together with soul— suppos-edly “Antiochene”)—as if “the Word”could be reckoned as a “part”of a composite entity!30 Such enquiries have tended to dominatepatristic studies in the twentieth century, with their postulatedschools of Alexandrian and Antiochene Christology. The under-standing of Christ here has become totally separated from the Pas-sion, even though Athanasius specifies that this is the very locus of reflection on the “Incarnation.” However, this identification of Jesus Christ with the Word of God made through the cross is some-thing maintained by theologians who fall either side of the opposi-tion set up in modern scholarship between “Alexandria” and“Antioch.”
For instance, Origen, the dominant figure in Alexandria, whoset the paradigm for much theology thereafter, points out that while the various miracles performed by Christ can be passed by insilence, “it is necessary to the proclamation of Jesus as Christ thathe should be proclaimed as crucified.”31 He also employs the imag-ery of Philippians 2 in a surprising manner to claim that by dying on the cross “the goodness of Christ appeared greater and moredivine and truly in accordance with the image of the Father,” thanif he had remained “equal to God” and had not become a servant
for the salvation of the world.32
It is therefore by the “economy” of
132 ST VLADIMIR’S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY
30 For criticism of the materialistic overtones of such reflection, see K. Anatolios, Athanasius , 79–80; idem. “‘The Body as Instrument’:A ReevaluationofAthanasius’Logos-Sarx Christology,” Coptic Church Review , 18 (1997) 78–84.
the Passion that Christ reveals the Father.33 It is also by reference to
Philippians 2—that all knees bow at the name of Jesus—thatOrigen establishes the omnipotence of God and Christ: “it is un-doubtedlyJesustowhomallthingshavebeensubjected,anditishe who wields dominion over all things, and all things have been sub- jected to the Father through him.”34 Most directly, Origen states inhisCommentary on Johnthat“thehighexaltationoftheSonofMan which occurred when he glorified God in his own death consistedin the fact that he was no longer any different from the Word, but was the same with it.”35 The identity between Jesus and the Wordof God turns upon the Passion, for it is as the crucified and risenone that he opens up the hidden sense of Scripture, the Word of God embodied in the Gospel. This identity hangs upon the cross,for the revelation of the Word of God occurs through the saving death of Christ as proclaimed in the Gospel.
Theodore of Mopsuestia, on the other hand, representing theso-called “Antiochene” tradition, maintains a similar point,though with more attention to the Gospel narrative of Christ.Christ, he argues, was united with the Word from his very concep-tion, so that all things he is described as doing are done in referenceto the Word, the Word which strengthened him for the perfect ful-fillment of all righteousness, after which he cannot be separatedfrom the Word.
So also the Lord, although at a later stage he had the Word working within him and throughout him in a perfect way, soas to be inseparable from the Word in his every motion, evenbefore this [He, the Lord] had as much as was needed for ac-complishing in himself the mighty things required. Beforehis crucifixion, because it was needful, he was permitted to
T he P aschal F oundation of C hristian T heology 133
32 Commentary on John, 1.231. Cf. Commentary on John, 10.25. In On First Principles ,1.2.8 the revelation of the Father by the Son’s abasement is used to explain how Christ is the “express image” of God’s being (cf. Heb 1:3).
33 Commentary on John, 32.359.34 On First Principles , 1.2.10. If the omnipotence of God is expressed in his crucified
Son, then this results in a very different picture of the “eternal creation” often as-cribed to Origen.
fulfill by his own purposes a righteousness which was for our
sake, and even in this undertaking he was urged on by the Word, and strengthened for the perfect fulfilment of what was fitting, for he had union with the Word straightway fromthe beginning when he was formed in his mothers womb.… [Then] after the resurrection and ascension into heaven, when he had shown himself worthy of the union by his own will (having received the union even before this in his very fashioning, by the good pleasure of the Lord), he also unmis-
takably furnished for ever after the proof of the union, sincehe had nothing to separate and cut him off from the working of God the Word, but had God the Word accomplishing ev-erything in him through the Union.36
Again, the total union or coincidence of the Word and Jesus occursonly through the Passion. Rather than seeing the various episodesof the Gospels as a spectrum resulting from the prism of the cross,
as Origen tends to do, Theodore pays greater attention to the nar-rative dimension of the Gospels and so emphasizes that the Passiondepends upon Christ’s fulfillment of righteousness by his own pur- poses , an important aspect, the truth of which is developed later by St Maximus.
RecapitulationIf it is the Crucified One who is the “Incarnate Word,” then the“Incarnation” must be understood in a broader context than sim-ply a divine person becoming flesh. Theological discourse of “incarnation” operates in an interpretative dimension. The relat-ionship between Scripture and Gospel, established by the preach-ing of the crucified and exalted Christ, which is at the heart of thisinterpretative engagement, is described by Irenaeus with the term“recapitulation.” According to Quintilian, recapitulation is the re-
statement of the case or story in brief, bringing together the wholeargument in one conspectus, so that, even if the details given madelittle impression, the cumulative effectmight be moreforceful.37 In
134 ST VLADIMIR’S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY
36 Fragment 3 from the lost work On the Incarnation (Swete, 296–97).37 Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria , 6.1
other words, recapitulation provides a résumé, which, because
shorter, is clearer and therefore more effective. So Irenaeus pointsout that when the Word recapitulates all things in himself, “the in-visible becomes visible, the incomprehensible becomes compre-hensible, the impassible becomes passible, and the Word becomesman” ( AH 3.16.6) Moreover, Irenaeus adds a little later, when the Word becomes flesh in this way, in “the last times,” he provides us with a résumé:
We have shown that the Son of God did not then begin to ex-ist, being with the Father from the beginning; but when hebecame incarnate and was made man, he recapitulated inhimself the long history of human beings, furnishing us, inrésumé (in compendio), with salvation, so that what we lost in
Adam—to be according to the image and likeness of God—that we might recover in Christ Jesus. ( AH 3.18.1)
The Word becoming flesh, itself an “eschatological” event, the parousia “in the last times,” is not, therefore an absolute beginning,but a recapitulation, a résumé in clear brevity, of the continual pres-ence and activity of the same Word. Against Marcion, on the onehand, Irenaeus can maintain that there is nothing new in the Gos-pel, what he is preached as having done, in the Gospel, is what hehas done in directing the economy from the beginning. What isnew is that Christ himself, who previously had only been an-nounced, has arrived—the concise Word, the Gospel, is clearly proclaimed. On the other hand, with the eschatological characterof the Gospel reflecting the divine perfection of Christ, he can alsomaintain, against the Gnostics, that there is nothing more to beadded to it. Recapitulating this history in himself, Jesus Christ fur-nishes us with salvation through a résumé, which, as an epitome,provides the guidelines for the correct reading of the same Word
throughout the long history written in Scripture.The apostolic proclamation of the crucified and exalted Lord,
the Gospel, is made up of the texture of the Scripture—the Law,the Psalms, and the Prophets—no longer proclaimed in the obscu-rity of types and prophecies, but refracted through the cross, and
T he P aschal F oundation of C hristian T heology 135
proclaimed clearly and concisely in a résumé. When Irenaeus says
that the Son becoming flesh recapitulates the long narrative of theeconomy, this is a recapitulationmade by God through the apostlesand their concise word: the same Word of God, obscurely writtenat length in Scripture, is preached concisely and clearly, enfleshed,by the apostles in their Gospel proclaiming the human sojourn of the Word of God. The unique revelation of God in Jesus Christ,the Word become flesh, is located specifically in the apostolicpreaching of him, the Gospel which refracts Scripture through thecross, and in which the Word hidden in Scripture becomes visibleand comprehensible—becomes flesh. The affirmation that JesusChrist is the Word of God become flesh is thus not based upon a historicizing conflation of John 1:14 with the infancy narratives, which would effectively turn theology into mythology. Rather, theconfession that JesusChrist is the Word of God isbased in the liter-ary dynamics of this relationship between Scripture and theGospel, a relationship which turns specifically upon the axis of thePaschal faith, the lordship of the crucified and exalted Christ, asproclaimed by the apostles “according to the Scriptures,” and ascontinually reflected on thereafter by those who followed in theirtradition. In this way, the confession that Christ is the Word of God directs our own attention back to Scripture, to reflect yet fur-ther on the identity of Christ, and this is an engagement to which
all Christians are called, so coming to understand themselves in thelight of Christ and eventually to come to the fullness of his stature(Eph 4:13). To overlook this dimension in which such theologicalaffirmations take flesh, are embodied, in preference for the already familiar shorthand formulae and the theological edifices built fromthem, turns theology from confession to a mixture of metaphysicsand mythology, and bypasses the perennial challenge of Christ’squestion “Who do you say I am?” (Mt 16:15).
